Panagiotonakos v Abergeldie Rehabilitation Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 187

Panagiotonakos v Abergeldie Rehabilitation Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 187

The applicant was not a consumer for the purposes of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), as the services (except certain additional works carried out free of charge) were supplied by the respondent to Sydney Water, not to the applicant. The additional works supplied to the applicant were performed free of charge and were not provided in trade or commerce. Therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the claim as a consumer claim, leading to dismissal of the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim / Final Determination on the Papers
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
["meaning of 'services'" "meaning of 'in Trade or Commerce'" 'consumer Claim Jurisdiction']
['consumer Law'] ["meaning of 'services'" "meaning of 'in Trade or Commerce'" 'consumer Claim Jurisdiction']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Consumer Claim / Final Determination on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant is a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)" "Whether the claim is a 'consumer claim' under the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)" 'Whether the respondent supplied services to the applicant in trade or commerce' 'Identification of any other cause of action if not a consumer claim' 'Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not a consumer for the purposes of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), as the services (except certain additional works carried out free of charge) were supplied by the respondent to Sydney Water, not to the applicant. The additional works supplied to the applicant were performed free of charge and were not provided in trade or commerce. Therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the claim as a consumer claim, leading to dismissal of the application.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • ['A hearing is dispensed with in relation to the determination of the matters defined as the Preliminary Questions.' 'The application is dismissed.' 'If any party wishes to make submissions as to costs then that party shall file and serve submissions not exceeding 3 pages within 14 days of the date of these orders,...